I have come to realize that we are really in a conflict between conservatives, liberal, and progressives. I grew up believing myself to be conservative in many ways, but having significant disagreements with my fellow travelers. On the other hand those who called themselves liberals were no more appealing. The last few years have made me realize that the reason why I found friendship on both sides is that there were liberals on both sides of the aisle, that I was one, and that we had certain conflicts with both progressives and conservatives. Progressives lean far more into the rule by the intellectual elite. After all they were the leaders in things like eugenics in the last century. Every nice, sterile, and controlled from the top. Their utopia would look an awful lot like Huxley's Brave New World. On the other hand the Conservatives were not actually the party of small government. They liked government, just as long as it imposed the society that they wanted. I think that Augustus' Rome, once all the wars had settled down, would be their model. Strict adherence to religious and moral laws, leave the rest alone.
The liberals seem to be the ones who want to get things done. Solving the issues is more important than the system that is used. If we can give all Americans access to affordable health care by private means that's great. If we need all public means, then we need to do that. If a combination of private and public are needed then let's figure it out.
I'm still bringing these thoughts together. Growing up in the 1980s in a family that was very much part of the religious right on one side (a grandfather was one of the founders of the Christian Coalition), but with parents who taught me to be independent and think for myself. The last few years have shown me that the entire edifice of the Right was built on sand and all the words were so much smoke. On the flip-side history and a basic understanding of human nature makes the social Democrats and their system repellant. I find myself digging backwards and looking at first principles. Your work is a treasure in that search!
Thanks for the vote of confidence. And for sharing your reflections. Though I just wrote this essay about conservatism, I think it's very easy to become beguiled by labels. The pragmatism you describe characterizes both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt - not coincidentally, the men considered by most historians and political scientists to be the two greatest presidents. (Some make a trio - a trinity? - by adding Washington.) Lincoln made his home in the more conservative party, Roosevelt in the more liberal, but neither was doctrinaire. In large part because of this, they found support in the opposite party for their initiatives, and initiated changes that have become part of the fabric of our republic.
I have come to realize that we are really in a conflict between conservatives, liberal, and progressives. I grew up believing myself to be conservative in many ways, but having significant disagreements with my fellow travelers. On the other hand those who called themselves liberals were no more appealing. The last few years have made me realize that the reason why I found friendship on both sides is that there were liberals on both sides of the aisle, that I was one, and that we had certain conflicts with both progressives and conservatives. Progressives lean far more into the rule by the intellectual elite. After all they were the leaders in things like eugenics in the last century. Every nice, sterile, and controlled from the top. Their utopia would look an awful lot like Huxley's Brave New World. On the other hand the Conservatives were not actually the party of small government. They liked government, just as long as it imposed the society that they wanted. I think that Augustus' Rome, once all the wars had settled down, would be their model. Strict adherence to religious and moral laws, leave the rest alone.
The liberals seem to be the ones who want to get things done. Solving the issues is more important than the system that is used. If we can give all Americans access to affordable health care by private means that's great. If we need all public means, then we need to do that. If a combination of private and public are needed then let's figure it out.
I'm still bringing these thoughts together. Growing up in the 1980s in a family that was very much part of the religious right on one side (a grandfather was one of the founders of the Christian Coalition), but with parents who taught me to be independent and think for myself. The last few years have shown me that the entire edifice of the Right was built on sand and all the words were so much smoke. On the flip-side history and a basic understanding of human nature makes the social Democrats and their system repellant. I find myself digging backwards and looking at first principles. Your work is a treasure in that search!
Thanks for the vote of confidence. And for sharing your reflections. Though I just wrote this essay about conservatism, I think it's very easy to become beguiled by labels. The pragmatism you describe characterizes both Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt - not coincidentally, the men considered by most historians and political scientists to be the two greatest presidents. (Some make a trio - a trinity? - by adding Washington.) Lincoln made his home in the more conservative party, Roosevelt in the more liberal, but neither was doctrinaire. In large part because of this, they found support in the opposite party for their initiatives, and initiated changes that have become part of the fabric of our republic.